North Korea: why bother with a test?
 

North Korea is capable of hitting the United States with a missile.

This could become Cold War II. I just don't know if KDR has the political pull that the Soviets had, so if Kim Jong-Il thinks he can hold whatever part of the continental US he can hit from North Korea hostage, he might want to rethink his strategy.

Heh, Alaska. Go ahead, dudes.

Too bad all of our troops are holed up in Afghanistan and Iraq. Too bad our government is 100% committed to Iran as our next target and not a country that actually has the capability to do something and a crazy-ass dictator who would.

I'm interested in how long it'd take to get to Alaska. A missile from N.Korea reach Tokyo in like a matter of 30 minutes or some ridiculously short number that would make evacuations impossible.

Why would Kim nuke the United States? I mean, he is not completely retarded. He probably knows that his country would be "away from keyboard" a couple of hours after the attack.

Also, don't you guys have those awesome missile-defense systems?

The US does, but it's still experimental. Though I'm usually not a supporter of the US missile defense system in its current form, this is essentially the kind of situation where such a system could actually be useful. Any real war where nuclear weapons will be involved will either involve too many to shoot down, or missiles launched from submarines which are a completely different kind of situation. A lone, relatively low-tech ballistic missile like that could provide a way to actually test the system, not to mention it would probably make the DPRK shut the fuck up for a while. As a bonus, it might produce more of that awesome stalinist propaganda you just can't get anywhere but from the KCNA (North Korea's "News" agency).

Perhaps even a new hall of fame entry at NK News explaining why their missile simply disappeared.

Well, they say it's experimental. My guess is they would be ready like what if it happened. The material, that is. Dunno about the people, since it basically was mankind that fucked up on 9/11, not the defense systems.

So what are you actually suggesting? If Bush, say, pulled all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reorganized our military forces to launch a strike on North Korea and neutralize its nuclear capabilities (and ultimately, its ability to project military force outward), would you be supportive? Or is this just simply you talking out of your ass, because if Bush actually did this, would you be like 'Bush is crazy, he's started war with North Korea!'?

US military is strong enough to deal with Iran and North Korea at the same time. Have a look at North Korea's military - it's basically a joke. Sure, they have millions of soldiers, but equipment-wise, you can compare them to Middle Age knights. Nobody says it would be easy, but the USA don't have to cover before anyone.

Don't forget the idea of Communist-unity (Community? :D); China probably wouldn't be pleased with the USA counter-attacking NK.

Well then they will be attacked as well.

Let's not forget one simple fact - When it comes to simple army vs. army, navy vs. navy, air force vs. air force the United States shits on the rest of the world.

The only card these countries hold is that they have nuclear weapons, which means that in order to truly be effective, they'll have to basically commit suicide, because I want you all to just realistically think of just what would be the American reaction if a nuclear weapon from a foreign power went off in any American city or took out a carrier battle group.

Americans from coast to coast would be screaming for blood. You saw the kind of leeway we gave Bush for the deaths of 3,000 people. Just imagine the kind of havoc we would wreak if we lost hundreds of thousands of people.

People said the beast was unleashed with 9/11, but realistically, we just been playing around, intentionally handcuffing ourselves. If someone pops off with that nuclear shit, America is going to obliterate whoever is responsible.

Yes, yes...the ethical ramifications of nuclear warfare go out the window if Americans die! :rolleyes:

Just like being in a relationship with someone and you KNOW sex is going happen eventually, you might as well just stop talking about it, do it and get it over with.

That's major bullshit right here. Nobody knows whether they have those nukes. Kim could be just bullshitting us. Ahmadinejad is too dense to have them. And even if they had nukes, our missile defense systems would kick any fuckin nukes ass, so don't act as if we had anything to worry about.

I agree with you. I couldnt really see N. Korea as a real threat as well. Contrary to Iran, N. Korea stated openly if they already have a nuclear weapon and they didnt cover it by bunch of energy generator project. I think the purpose entirely to make an empty threat to the State. They havent done any nuclear test, so it may safe to say DPRK doesnt have nuclear at all.

Well N. Korea economy is worse compared to S. Korea in any way. Sometime I'm wondering how they financed the nuclear bomb project since they isolated themselves extremely (compared to Myanmmar I guess).

1.) A mid-range weapon like the one they're testing *wouldn't* be able to hit America with a nuke. To hit the West Coast, they'd have to trade off the weight of an atomic warhead for a lighter ballistic weapon due to the amount of fuel it would take to give the missile it's best range. It's a simple issue of weight.

Yes, they could hit America - but if they did, it would not be able to be an atomic warhead of any type.

2.) What Kim may have is a hydrogen bomb - like the one we dropped over Hiroshima. Yes, thats bad - but you'd need about 3-5 of them to destroy a modern city, and apparently Kim doesn't have all that many to begin with.

3.) Fallout is bullshit. Nuke weapons clean up fairly quickly. This isn't to say there'd be no radiation poisoning but it wouldn't be the end of the West Cost by a long shot.

Well, economically there is alot to worry about. A medium range missile could do alot of damage to japan or South korea, sending the world economy into the toilet. Our commitment to defend these countries still stands, thus causing us to commit troops and money to the fray. The ripple effects through China could have disatrous effects. This is not to say that the combined U.S., Japanese and South Korean militaries couldn't demolish the North koreans, but at what price. Whether or not Kim is bullshitting, who wants to take that chance?

And what do the North koreans have to lose by testing the missile anyway? After their last test which buzzed japan, they were ostracized in the U.N. and then a few years later they launched a diplomatic offensive and normalized relations with many of the same nations who were chastizing them earlier.

I would urge you all to keep your eyes on the news over the next week. My ship and its crew are probably going to be a hot topic this week, you'll see why if we do make headlines. It relates directly to the growing anxiety over vulnerability to North Korean nuclear attack.

The DPRK does have long enough range delivery systems, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the means to maintain those systems over the long-term. It's really expensive to maintain a long range nuclear arsenal. One of the main reasons we started dismantling ours, after the Cold War. Which leads me to believe that whatever the DPRK is planning, whether it's political pressure/manhandling or an actual attack it'll probably happen relatively soon.

No, it doesn't. A Taepodong-2 type missile is midrange. A long-range delivery system would be able to hit well within America's midwest if launched from Korea. Also, the fuel/payload ratio is completely different - a true long-range missile would have the capacity to hit America with a nuke.

This situation is no different than the Cuban Missile crisis - down to the range of the missiles.

Personally, I think countering by launching an unarmed ICBM right into the middle of Pyongyang would be an appropriate response. Doesn't do any real harm, but gets the point across quite effectively.

I hope to God you're kidding.

I don't think you understand the level of destruction a single ICBM can cause, warhead or not.

Likely, North Korea would aim their missiles at Japan more than the US since they're closer, and well, it's essentially taking hostage the second largest economy in the world, so they could likely get something out of it. After all, their main purpose here is blackmail and nothing else.

There's still much unknown about the Taep'o-dong 2 missile. Estimates for the range vary somewhat, from 3500 to 6000 km, even more in a few estimates. Add to that the fact that from what I've read the missile appears to able to be used in a 2 stage or 3 stage configuration, the latter perhaps resulting in a range increase, but most importantly in a payload weight increase, from somewhere below half a metric tonne, to somewhere aroung 800kg, perhaps more. Essentially, it means that if they do manage to make a missile capable of hitting America, which I doubt is possible for now, it's likely they'll be able to use a nuclear warhead.

What the hell are you smoking? The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a gun-trigger type, highly enriched uranium fission bomb. There was no such thing as hydrogen, or lithium or whatever else you might find into other bomb designs. Any bomb using hydrogen is a thermonuclear weapon, using a first stage fission bomb as a way to start the fusion reaction for the second stage, usually through radiation implosion. And those are in the megaton range, many time the power of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs. The only design that I know of which is not a true thermonuclear weapon but uses hydrogen in the Soviet "Alarm Clock" design, which is more of a boosted fission bomb and can reach a few hundred kilotons in term of power. Though I'm not sure why North Korea would use that.

Besides, they have plutonium, it's already been established. It's not (was not?) in a usable form yet, being part of nuclear waste, but North Korea has a reprocessing plant, so they essentially have access to plutonium. From there, it's true that they have a bit of work to do, plutonium can only be used in implosion-trigger type fission bombs, unlike highly enriched uranium which can be used to build simple gun-trigger type bombs. And implosion bombs are harder to design and absolutely have to be tested.

What we'd need to know is, can they make the bomb small enough so it fits in their missiles. This is actually difficult to estimate. The hardest parts if you want to make an implosion-trigger type bomb are acquiring the plutonium and designing the bombs. They have plutonium. When it comes to the design, the theory behind nuclear weapons is essentially available in many easily obtainable physics textbooks, but not in a ready-to-be-used form, it takes some engineering. While the first bombs where really large, it was mostly due to the fact that the theory behind them was not as well-developped as it is today, and the fact is that it wasn't really necessary to make them smaller anyway, they were delivered with bombers. If North Korea decided to design a bomb, it's obvious they've done so with the goal of making it small enough to fit on a missile, unless they want what would amount to a large paperweight. It's longer and harder, but it gives you a much more useful bomb. From what I've seen, they've got a large number of people working on their nuclear projects, I think Yongbyon alone has a few thousand people in scientific personnel alone. So it's definitely possible for them to actually get a nuke, though how long it'll take, I have no idea.

Bottom line is, implosion weapons have to be tested. So far, so good, there hasn't been any test. If there's one, though, then you should begin to worry if you live in Japan or the West Coast.

It wouldn't be the end of the west coast, but to say there is nearly no fallout is somewhat untrue. It all depends, quite frankly. It's difficult to estimate, it depends on the strength of the bomb, the material used, plutonium or uranium, and how well the bomb works, that is, its efficiency. Those are a few of the factors, but I don't know enough to actually be able to agree of disagree with you.

Are you suggeting an ICBM that doesn't contain explosives of any kind in it Monkey King? Like say you're just going to crash a large empty shell into the streets?

In the words of Scotty - "You can'na change the laws of physics!"

They have a missle that can hit America - but the weight of a nuke warhead PLUS the fuel needed to make it to our shores would render it too heavy to move. It's one or the other. They do not have another type of missile (as far as we know) that can reach farther than that and theres no modification that can undo or change the laws of gravity to get that missile any farther than it can.

If Korea had a warhead capible of hitting the midwest, it would be labeled an ICBM and the entire world would be shitting it's self over this.

You lost all sense of legitimacy here.

Apparently, all ballistic weapons around the world need your approval or something? Yes, I'm sure they do, generic internet jerk.

They have it - but they don't - but they have it! Make up your mind.

The truth is they have the ability to create enriched plutonium which could be used in a warhead, yes. But they lack the delivery system, as well as anything substantially viable as a detonation package, according to the reports. See, they could flip the switch and detonate the so-called enriched uranium - but it may not create the explosion that you'd expect given their limited technology with this stuff.

What we need to know is if they have access to better missile technology. See, they CAN put it into their missiles that we know of - what we have to worry about is them finding longer range materials.

It would take obscene amounts of nuclear strikes to cause a Hollywood style fallout. The Bikini Islands are (mostly) free from radiation - and look how many times we tested there?

Yeah, pretty much. The point isn't to blow anything up, just remind them of where we can put our missiles. The property damage just drives the point home.

Do the US and North Koreans even HAVE any relations to worsen, in a realistic sense?

There are, as a matter of fact, modifications which can add range or payload capacity to a rocket. It's called adding more stages to your rocket. If you can drop more dead weight more often, then you stop wasting your thrust accelerating what is essentially a useless metal hulk. It's not entirely difficult to prove with the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. As I've said in my original post, the Taep'o-dong 2 exists in 2 or 3 stage configuration. The first stage remains the same for the Taep'o-dong 2, but this can make a significant difference.

I've already mentioned that the estimates for the missile's capabilities vary from source to source, and I'm not even sure the North Koreans themselves really know exactly what range they can get with the thing.

So far neither of us provided any actual quantitative evidence for our respective opinions, so I'll go ahead and do so, roughly. Take the W-50 thermonuclear warhead, once used on Pershings and for which manufacturing began in 1963. The W-50 weighted 410 pounds, less than a quarter of a metric tonne. To give ourselves a margin of safety, let's triple this number. We get less than 700kg. 700kg is at the lower boundary of the payload weight estimates I've seen for the Taep'o-dong 2 in its 3 stages version. When you consider that the same estimates place the missile's range around 6000km and sometime higher, can you still say that a Taep'o-dong 2 with a nuclear warhead won't be able to get off the ground with the same certainty?

It's a rough calculation, I'm aware of it. But estimates themselves vary quite a bit, so it's difficult to do better than that. As for the warhead specifications, it's also difficult to make estimates here, but I believe a relatively powerful warhead from more than 40 years ago, with its weight tripled, is likely something that a nation existing today can achieve if all it wants is a weapon it can aim at someone, and not an efficient, powerful bomb. I know that North Korea is a backward hellhole for most part, but when you pour 25% of your nation's GDP in the military, you can probably develop technology available 40 years ago even if your people are starving. The DPRK's GDP is 40 billions, so that's 10 billion for the military. Compare this to the estimated 310 million it cost South Africa to develop nuclear weapons, ramp up the number to 500 million, 1 billion even, just in case estimates are wrong, and ask yourself: I'm the dictator of the worst hellhole on the planet, do I want to spend one tenth of what I spend on my military each year to develop nuclear weapons? Oh, wait, you say I already have spent fuel and the reprocessing plant to extract plutonium from it? Likely your answer will be "Yes, I'd like that very much".

Says the guy who called the Hiroshima bomb an hydrogen (original italics) bomb. The reason I've said "That I know of", was precisely because it's possible that there exists an obscure design using hydrogen that I've never heard of, but frankly, I'm fairly confident in my knowledge when it comes to nuclear weapons. And it'll remain that way until you show me that "hydrogen bomb" dropped on hiroshima, or, to a lesser degree, what design those North Korean "hydrogen bombs" might use along with a basic explanation of the bomb's operation. Until then you can shove your generic internet jerk comment where it came from.

The reason I've added that "(was not?)" in my original post, is simply that nobody knows if they really have started to extract plutonium or not from their spent fuel. They have plutonium, but the question is whether or not it's in usable form or mixed with a lot of other stuff. And we also know that they have a reprocessing plant capable of separating plutonium. It all comes down to them having decided to go through with this or not, but even if they haven't, they can change their mind, so for all intent and purpose we can just go ahead and say they have plutonium in usable form.

I'll go ahead and assume that when you said uranium in your above quote, you really did meant plutonium. If it were highly enriched uranium, they'd have no problem actually building a bomb. All they'd have to do is make a simple gun-trigger type bomb, the kind the scientists during the Manhattan project didn't even test before dropping it on Hiroshima. So assuming you meant plutonium, yes, you're right, but that's essentially what I've said before: implosion trigger-type devices have to be tested first. No country would be retarded enough not to do so. It's why I've said that as long as there isn't a nuclear test in NK, there's no need to worry ('cept for chemical weapons, but they're orders of magnitude less dangerous anyway).

The key issue here is the design. As I've said before, a bomb which is only deliverable through a bomber is useless to NK. This is precisely why they'll design their warhead small enough to fit on a missile from the start. And since it's suspected that they've been at it for some time now, and have invested significant resources, it's not so much a question of if, but rather, when.

True. But it's been some time since the last test. A few years may not be much for an atoll, but if it hits a large city, it's a serious economic setback. Not to mention that the safety regulations for what is safe to visit, and what is safe to live on, are different. But as I've said, it's really difficult to say as it depends on so much stuff, and it's not something I know too well anyway.